Federal judge throws out excessive force lawsuit

MARTINSBURG – A federal judge has granted a Martinsburg Police Department officer’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the officer by a man who claimed police used excessive force when he was Tasered during a dispute over a rental car in 2011.

U.S. District Court Judge Gina M. Groh filed a 21-page opinion and order Jan. 3 granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the lawsuit filed against Patrolman Erin P. Gibbons.

“In the case at bar, the court finds based upon the uncontested material facts that the defendant’s use of force to subdue the plaintiff was objectively reasonable under the circumstances,” Groh’s opinion reads.

The plaintiff in the case, William E. Hale, of Martinsburg, filed the civil suit Sept. 16, 2011, naming Gibbons, Patrolman Michael Jones and the city of Martinsburg as defendants.

Those named in the suit filed a joint motion for summary judgment Nov. 15. On Dec. 7, the court entered an agreed order of voluntary partial dismissal, dismissing Jones and the city as defendants in the suit. The only claim remaining was against Gibbons for excessive use of force. Gibbons then moved for a summary judgment to dismiss the claim, which was granted by Groh.

The suit stemmed from Hale’s arrest May 6, 2011, for obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was Tasered after he refused commands to leave Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Martinsburg following a dispute with a manager over the availability of a vehicle. Hale demanded he be upgraded to another vehicle after complaining the car offered to him was too small to physically accommodate him.

According to deposition testimony from Enterprise employees, Hale was “irate” and was creating a scene in front of other customers. Another employee testified that Hale didn’t specifically threaten anyone, but was “creating an environment that was hostile,” records show.

That employee said Hale stated he wasn’t going to leave until he got a car, even though he had been informed Enterprise wasn’t going to provide him with a vehicle and he needed to leave. Gibbons testified during a deposition that he was on routine patrol when he responded to a call regarding a disorderly subject at Enterprise. When he arrived at the scene, he observed Hale, who was agitated and extremely nervous, sitting with his cellphone in his hand. Employees told the officer that they had already asked Hale to leave. Hale told the officer he wasn’t going anywhere until he had resolved his issue with Enterprise.

According to Gibbons, Hale was “speaking in circles,” holding his phone up to his ear without talking into it, then putting it down in his lap. Gibbons concluded Hale might be mentally impaired. When Hale said he was calling his daughter or wife to pick him up, Gibbons said he offered to give Hale a ride to a nearby 7-Eleven to wait for his ride. The officer testified that he feared Hale might be “on the brink of exploding,” records show.

Gibbons testified he gave Hale several more orders to leave and placed a call for backup. At that point, Hale stated “the only way I’m leaving is by physical force” – a statement which was corroborated by witnesses, records show.

Gibbons told Hale he could arrange that, but told Hale it would be easier if he just left. Gibbons then took the cartridge off his Taser and placed it against the back of Hale’s neck. Hale stated he had a defibrillator. Gibbons told Hale he still had a chance to leave, but he said Hale told him “do what you’ve got to do,” records show.

The officer said he grabbed Hale by the left arm, but the man locked it up and pulled away from him. Gibbons administered a five-second burst to Hale with his Taser. Gibbons testified Hale didn’t appear to experience any pain from the initial shock, which was corroborated by one of the employees.

Gibbons Tasered Hale again and simultaneously gave him a verbal command to get on the floor. When Hale began to stand up, Gibbons administered another five-second burst to the center of Hale’s back. Hale allegedly turned to face Gibbons, grabbing at the officer’s uniform. Another scuffle allegedly ensued, during which Gibbons attempted to force Hale to the floor.

Gibbons conceded his Taser log recorded that the Taser was discharged eight to nine times. Jones testified in his deposition that when he arrived at the scene, he saw Hale’s hand either on Gibbons’ shirt or gun belt, so he commanded Hale to place his hands behind his back. Hale didn’t comply, so Jones discharged his Taser, striking Hale in the back. Afterward, Gibbons was able to subdue Hale on the ground.

Hale was transported to the Martinsburg Police Department, where an ambulance was dispatched. The ambulance crew told Hale that he should go to the hospital. Hale was charged with the municipal offense of obstructing a law enforcement officer. Hale’s daughter transported him to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Martinsburg that same day, where he was admitted for observation and treatment. He was released three days later.

Hale denied taking any action to actively resist Gibbons, but conceded that he pleaded guilty to obstructing an officer in municipal court. He claimed he pleaded guilty because the prosecutor’s plea offer involved no fine or incarceration. However, Groh found Hale’s guilty plea was a conclusive admission to the charge of obstructing.

“Even viewing the material facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party, the court finds that by the plaintiff’s own admission, he disobeyed and ignored commands to leave the premises. In fact, the plaintiff informed the defendant ‘the only way I’m going to leave is by force,’ and ‘do what you’ve got to do,’ Groh’s opinion reads.

The court found that Hale was trespassing on Enterprise’s property once he refused its request to leave and that he disobeyed an officer more than once when commanded to do so. The court also found that Gibbons had reason to believe, based on Hale’s behavior and demeanor, that he posed “an immediate threat to the safety” of Gibbons and others, records show.

“Finally, the defendant had reason to believe the plaintiff was resisting arrest when he did not comply with the defendant’s commands after he was initially Tased. Therefore, the defendant’s conduct in further Tasing the plaintiff in order to subdue him was objectively reasonable,” Groh’s opinion reads.